Interesting article

[evenkeel]

So right off the bat I'll admit to being a believer in the notion that solid wood, acoustic guitars "open up" and sound better over time. But this article certainly challenges that notion.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podca ... u-12-01-04

 

[killdeer43]

I read that article, so thanks for posting it.
It certainly gives us food for thought when we get down to comparing guitars around here.

I still contend that the individual player is a big reason behind the sound, no matter the instrument. I had a co-worker in the late 60s who could make the cheapest guitar (mine) sound good. :wink:

And so it goes. There's always more than meets the ear.

Joe

 

[fronobulax]

Interesting and not really surprising to me. That said, there will always be people who discredit the study because the "experts" used were not expert enough. I think there is a long history of sound and technology where there is a vocal minority who claim they can hear something that most people do not, and back up their claim by buying high end gear, using vinyl, preferring analog over digital, tubes over amp modeling and so on.

It should also be noted that the people assessing the instruments were doing so by playing and the sound can be much different 10 feet away.

I agree with Joe's comment that individual players and techniques have a huge impact on the sound. Those who know Jack can find numerous stories to the effect that Jack Casady sounds like Jack Casady whether he is playing mgod's rig or a Fender in the early days or a Starfire or an Alembic or a Casady signature or a throw away Epiphone EB-0 or live or in the studio. Even Jack on a B-50 with amplification still gets that characteristic Jack sound. Jack is admittedly a poor example to make a point about acoustic instruments but he does demonstrate that the player is at least as important as the equipment, if not more so, when it comes to sound perceived by the audience.

 

[Ridgemont]

Articles like this always make we wonder about the whole old versus new debate. I don't know anything about violins, but I do know that guitar building techniques have come a very long way in the last 100 years. I have heard many authorities say that the best guitars are being built now. One thing that violin and guitar building have in common is that builders have always hunted for that elusive vintage tone of old instruments. Maybe builders have found it, or at least gotten close, making the tone gap between old and new less distinct. I still think there is something to be said about "opening up." I have witnessed it first hand. So, if the best guitars and violins are being built now, I wonder how they will sound after 50 years.

 

[Ridgemont]

Just an additional note about the study. This article has nothing to do with the opening up process. There is no control group, meaning that we do not have a preserved never played violin from the 18th century. We do not know how they sounded when they were first built. All it is saying is that current builders are able to recreate the tone of an old instrument.

 

[Mr. P ~]

Just an additional note about the study. This article has nothing to do with the opening up process. There is no control group, meaning that we do not have a preserved never played violin from the 18th century. We do not know how they sounded when they were first built. All it is saying is that current builders are able to recreate the tone of an old instrument.

Well, you surely know how to weed through the "ca ca" to get to the meat of the matter!! There is no telling how many new ones they went through to get top notch new ones. "Design of Experiment" is hyper important in this kind of test. They may have done it all right, but we don't know.

Here is some more food for thought. I am very heavy handed and use a stiff pick with medium gage bronze strings, and my old guitar instructor used to tell people with new Martins that they wanted to "open up", give it to Curtis for a month, he will open it up!!

The more a new guitar top vibrates, and the more it vibrates deeply from heavy use, the more the top and it's finish will relax and give that big Open tone we like so much. IMHO! :mrgreen:

 

[fronobulax]

This article has nothing to do with the opening up process.

Literally true, but it seems to me that under some circumstances new, modern instruments have achieved the tone of the vintage Holy Grail. That, in turn, makes the whole discussion about opening up moot. If I want "that sound" I just search new instruments until I find it and buy one. If opening up is a myth then I have the best sounding tone from the start. If opening up is 'real" then my tone is only going to get better and that, in turn, suggest that 50 years from now a repeat of the experiment would edge even closer towards the newer instruments.

BTW, I'm writing as if I believe the scientific validity of the study. I find it very interesting but, like so many things involving the human senses, the sample size is too small to move from anecdote to statistically relavent science. IMO. YMMV.

 

[West R Lee]

As far as achieving "Vintage sound", the subject was discussed at length in the thread "Pre War". Based on the various input of others, what I took from the thread was that in guitars anyway, "Vintage sound" can be had by using a couple of methods that were no longer used for a while after WWII...... those being the positioning and shape of bracing. It was a bit up in the air as to why these methods were lost for a time, but apparently in the search for "vintage sound", manufacturers have rediscovered them in the years of late.

Guild built the DV's with the concept in mind.....and I for one think it worked. Martin markets many guitars with that goal and design in mind, as does Gibson.......and several other builders.

How much difference aged wood makes in the "opening up" process is subjective, but I think probably plays a small role.

West

 

[taabru45]

Around 77 to 79 when I bought my F50R and then my F512...It wasn't unusual to see a couple to several Guilds in the music stores...I played quite a few of each of those models before I found the one that in my mind stood out more than the others...they were all good, but the I ended up with were outstanding, (love at 1st listen) and the F50R had a couple of finish cracks which were worth about a 10% discount or something...but the sound was more important to me than the appearance....Steffan

 

[West R Lee]

I think there are other subtle and not so subtle things that makers can do to help acheive the "vintage sound" end. Things like top thickness and material.

So I guess if I were asked if I thought a guitar could be built that sounded virtually identical to say a fine sounding 1940 Martin D28?.........I'd say yes, if a builder wanted to take the time, gather the material and go to the expense, the same sound could probably be had in a new guitar. But do assembly line guitars sound as good as a bunch of pre-1944 Martins.......generally speaking?....probably not.

West

 

[adorshki]

Just an additional note about the study. This article has nothing to do with the opening up process. There is no control group, meaning that we do not have a preserved never played violin from the 18th century. We do not know how they sounded when they were first built. All it is saying is that current builders are able to recreate the tone of an old instrument.

Excellent point. In fact, the only point.
However, just to keep the kettle boiling I seem to recall a similar epigraph written by no less that the distinguished and respected Frank Ford? At least I know someone posted a link to a similar article here, before, regarding guitars specifically and some experts inability to distinguish between played in and unplayed aged guitars of an identical model..the main point, however, was that mere age does not guarantee an improvement in tone in any given instrument.
In the end, however, I have yet to see anything that measured a change in an instrument's tone over time and "playing in", before we even try to define whether the change was for the better.
Thought experiment:
What is needed is to record an instrument with a few predetermined musical passages, get an oscilloscope recording of that, and compare recordings taken periodically over time to verify what if any changes actually occur. Maybe even as simple as simple tap tests on a few spots to eliminate the variable of the player and their potential varying skill on a given day.
For teh record: I DO believe in opening up and I DO believe that it's the player, not the instrument, that has the MOST influence on "tone". :wink:

 

[adorshki]

...I played quite a few of each of those models before I found the one that in my mind stood out more than the others...they were all good, but the I ended up with were outstanding, (love at 1st listen) and the F50R had a couple of finish cracks which were worth about a 10% discount or something...but the sound was more important to me than the appearance....Steffan

I have to admit that when I was shopping for my D25 I actually went for the one that felt the best to play. They all sounded pretty good to me, between 2 D25's and a DCE1. In fact I really really wanted the cutaway and pickup in the DCE, but in the end, I had to have my D25's neck. To me, I knew the one with the best feel was gonna allow my technique to achieve the best possible tone, and even improve my technique.
And so it did.
I even had to insist that I wanted the one on display that I had played and knew already, not a "fresh one from the back"... :lol:

 

[Zelja]

If opening up is 'real" then my tone is only going to get better

Maybe not. "Opening up" often seems to imply that the instrument gets louder & has a larger bass response. AFAIK, a lot of the forward X bracing, shaved braces, thinner & lighter tops etc are done in order to increase the bass response & give that sought after "vintage" sound.

So when does further "opening up" & hence too much bass lead to a flubby or muddy sounding guitar? When does the balance of the instrument suffer due to too much bass? Might not be a problem for some but it could be for others. As always, so many things with guitar tone are subjective.

 

[tjmangum]

I think there are other subtle and not so subtle things that makers can do to help acheive the "vintage sound" end. Things like top thickness and material.
So I guess if I were asked if I thought a guitar could be built that sounded virtually identical to say a fine sounding 1940 Martin D28?.........I'd say yes, if a builder wanted to take the time, gather the material and go to the expense, the same sound could probably be had in a new guitar.
West

Jim, I recently encountered something like you describe. A fellow came down from Portland to check out the '47 D-28 I'm selling and he and his playing partner brought several premium guitars to A - B it with. The best was a D-28 Authentic, which wasn't really on my radar at the time. They were both very good pickers and they went back and forth between the Authentic and the '47 and the match in tone was uncanny. The 47 had just a bit more sustain than the Authentic.
Once they left, I learned the Authentic was Martin's hand built recreation of a 37 D-28 that retailed for about 30k when they were released a couple of years ago.
I have played, just briefly, a few prewar D-28s and to my ears the '47 I'm marketing is very close to the prewar models I've experienced. Bottom line, IMHO, Martin (and I suppose any talented luthier) can recreate the best, but you can't exactly match or build into a guitar the aging of the woods, finish and how that top is going to change after years of playing.
Terry

 

[killdeer43]

IMHO, I like the idea of the blindfold test.
You wear a blinfold and someone hands you a series of guitars for you to compare the sound, feel, etc., without the visual aid. A lot of the way we think has to do with what we see and in the blindfold test, your other senses have to take over. Your brain processes information differently when any one of the senses is compromised.

Humans are often victims of the need for status. There is a certain status that comes from the hood ornament of a Mercedes Benz, the headstock of a Guild DV72/Martin D45, etc. We get locked in to what we see to the point of missing the more important aspects; e.g., how it feels, sounds, etc.

Like Billy Crystal's Fernando character on SNL, "It's better to look good dahling, than to feel good." :lol:

Just pondering over Friday morning coffee...nothing too serious. 8)
Joe

 

[Ridgemont]

Upon Al's suggestion, I do have a recording of my 000-28h when it was maybe a month old. It does sound distinctly different now. I will check what strings I used and change the strings to those. I will then record the same diddy. I remember Frosty commenting that the guitar sounded new and compressed at the time.

 

[adorshki]

Upon Al's suggestion, I do have a recording of my 000-28h when it was maybe a month old. It does sound distinctly different now. I will check what strings I used and change the strings to those. I will then record the same diddy. I remember Frosty commenting that the guitar sounded new and compressed at the time.

Love it! Forgot about the strings variable too.

 

[Ravon]

This is the way I look at it the 'opening up theory'- In 'theory' a curveball is just an optical illusion, but as Dizzy Dean once said "Stand behind that tree 60 ft. away and I'll whomp you with an 'Optical Illusion'!" It was proven eventually that it is theoretically possible to throw a curveball and along with the physics, it is part optical illusion as well. That's about as deep as I can get with the subject :mrgreen:

 

[killdeer43]

Anyone who can quote Dizzy Dean is a friend of mine! :wink:

Joe

 

[adorshki]

This is the way I look at it the 'opening up theory'- In 'theory' a curveball is just an optical illusion, but as Dizzy Dean once said "Stand behind that tree 60 ft. away and I'll whomp you with an 'Optical Illusion'!" It was proven eventually that it is theoretically possible to throw a curveball and along with the physics, it is part optical illusion as well. That's about as deep as I can get with the subject :mrgreen:

Reminds me of the famous words of Mr. Paul Corusoe in "Radio EXP":
"Well now, you can't believe everything you see and hear now, can you?"
And in those days, there were good reasons for that.
It might have been somethin' you ate. :lol: